Sega or Nintendo?

[Jrecee]

A proper discussion of sega vs nintendo can not be had unless we are wearing neon clothing, riding on rollerblades, listening to discmans, eating grape poptarts and debating on a playground.

[Ack]

Maybe you did do it as an act of curiosity, but it read to me as one with a hostile edge, and judging from the response, I'd say I wasn't the only one to come to those interpretations. So the way I see it, I'm defusing a situation which may very well have ended in a full blown argument. I tried to do so first with humorous pictures of various well known pop culture figures committing acts of placing their palms against their foreheads as a symbol of frustration and annoyance, an attempt to break what I saw as the underlying anger that had entered the conversation with a quick jolt so we all might take a moment and laugh at ourselves. I see some of us didn't get the hint. Now, I see one person attempting to become what I interpret to be openly hostile to me because I attempted to do my job in a manner which did not result in me screaming at all involved and locking the thread. But then again, perhaps you wanted a fight, or you were just too blind to see what I could see as the direction you were heading. And here we are, in this conversation, heading down that same road of hostility and anger. I would suggest an abrupt turn in a different direction is in order, because now I haven't the patience to respond to it with funny pictures.

[RyaNtheSlayA]

Hey if you want to carry on this argument, debate, whatever the hell it is start PM'ing eachother instead of highjacking the thread.

Anyway. Sega. I prefer Sonic to Mario and just about all Sega IP's over Nintendo's. Most of Sega's projects tend to be more edgy, fast, and innovative. Nintendo in my view, has always played it safe, and while that has made them stable as a company, they don't have the level of respect Sega has from me. Also just to reinforce my view of Sega's awesomness.

Comix Zone


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azIZwsCGjW0


'nuff said.

[Original_Name]

Maybe you did do it as an act of curiosity, but it read to me as one with a hostile edge, and judging from the response, I'd say I wasn't the only one to come to those interpretations. So the way I see it, I'm defusing a situation which may very well have ended in a full blown argument. I tried to do so first with humorous pictures of various well known pop culture figures committing acts of placing their palms against their foreheads as a symbol of frustration and annoyance, an attempt to break what I saw as the underlying anger that had entered the conversation with a quick jolt so we all might take a moment and laugh at ourselves. I see some of us didn't get the hint. Now, I see one person attempting to become what I interpret to be openly hostile to me because I attempted to do my job in a manner which did not result in me screaming at all involved and locking the thread. But then again, perhaps you wanted a fight, or you were just too blind to see what I could see as the direction you were heading. And here we are, in this conversation, heading down that same road of hostility and anger. I would suggest an abrupt turn in a different direction is in order, because now I haven't the patience to respond to it with funny pictures.

We apparently have conflicting views of what is to be considered openly hostile. I reread my recent comments and see nothing but sound attempts to remedy conflicts by explaining my reasonings behind select statements in an attempt to prove that the conversation is in fact civil, compounded by an intent to further understand how other people reached the conclusions they arrived to, out of curiosity and greater understanding of one another. To me, the messages sent prior to your second facepalm showed nothing but intent to resolve the conflict, thus I found a "Here we go again" image rather confusing. I asked you why you found such a response necessary and essentially got, "why doesn't everyone just shut the fuck up already?". I stated that I found this notion a bit oppressive, and tried to make that clear, but told you I'd just shut up to make you happy, but that too was interpreted as hostile.

So basically this whole thing revolves around me apparently sounding hostile and not fully understanding why. Listen, I didn't want this to become a huge, stupid internet fight, I just wanted to make a point that personal preference and general concensus are not one and the same; maybe I had a bit more passion because I had just accidently rediscovered the horrors of Old-Wizard.com. Apparently the lesson I'm supposed to learn from all this is that it's impossible to resolve a conflict and defend yourself simultaneously.

Apologies to anyone who thought I was stomping around searching for an e-fight or something, I can promise you that was never the case. Though I can't figure out exactly what I've done wrong, I'm gonna be the big man here and just openly say that I'm sorry for the confusion and frustration.

[Mod_Man_Extreme]

Damnit Ryan! I didn't want to post a preference, but I can't help not to put Sega on the top of my list whenever Comix Zone enters the conversation.

Anyhow I agree that while Nintendo will always be top dog in the sentimental sense as it was my first system, Sega was/is just an all around a better company when it comes to putting out incredible software like Comix Zone (especially on the Genesis' limited hardware) that's in a league of it's own but still looks and plays great.

"Test 1,2, SEEEGGGAAA!!!"

[MrPopo]

You know, as much as I love Nintendo, I have to admit that the SE-GA bootup thing was badass. I think getting rid of that was what really caused Sega systems to stop selling well.

[ZeroAX]

Johny Turbo owns you all lame sega and ninty fanboyz


NEC and Hudson FTW (not really)

[Mod_Man_Extreme]

Johny Turbo owns you all lame sega and ninty fanboyz


NEC and Hudson FTW (not really)

Backwards cap plus rapist beard and gun = why NEC failed in the states.

[Mr.White555]

Definately Nintendo.

But let me put it this way. The only system I had was a snes and a gameboy color until I got a ps2.So yeah I practically missed the entire 32/64 bit era...

Now I did recently pick up a sega genesis and I will admit its freaking awesome. The Divison between the snes and genesis is like ying and yang. The genesis has better licesned titles, but the snes had better first party games( this is biased). The Snes has the greatest controller layout ever, the genesis has the most comfortable controller ever( I have big hands). The snes has replicated sound, but the genesis has techno midi like sound. Its all a matter of tastes really or what you grew up on

[Ack]

Maybe you did do it as an act of curiosity, but it read to me as one with a hostile edge, and judging from the response, I'd say I wasn't the only one to come to those interpretations. So the way I see it, I'm defusing a situation which may very well have ended in a full blown argument. I tried to do so first with humorous pictures of various well known pop culture figures committing acts of placing their palms against their foreheads as a symbol of frustration and annoyance, an attempt to break what I saw as the underlying anger that had entered the conversation with a quick jolt so we all might take a moment and laugh at ourselves. I see some of us didn't get the hint. Now, I see one person attempting to become what I interpret to be openly hostile to me because I attempted to do my job in a manner which did not result in me screaming at all involved and locking the thread. But then again, perhaps you wanted a fight, or you were just too blind to see what I could see as the direction you were heading. And here we are, in this conversation, heading down that same road of hostility and anger. I would suggest an abrupt turn in a different direction is in order, because now I haven't the patience to respond to it with funny pictures.

We apparently have conflicting views of what is to be considered openly hostile. I reread my recent comments and see nothing but sound attempts to remedy conflicts by explaining my reasonings behind select statements in an attempt to prove that the conversation is in fact civil, compounded by an intent to further understand how other people reached the conclusions they arrived to, out of curiosity and greater understanding of one another. To me, the messages sent prior to your second facepalm showed nothing but intent to resolve the conflict, thus I found a "Here we go again" image rather confusing. I asked you why you found such a response necessary and essentially got, "why doesn't everyone just shut the fuck up already?". I stated that I found this notion a bit oppressive, and tried to make that clear, but told you I'd just shut up to make you happy, but that too was interpreted as hostile.

So basically this whole thing revolves around me apparently sounding hostile and not fully understanding why. Listen, I didn't want this to become a huge, stupid internet fight, I just wanted to make a point that personal preference and general concensus are not one and the same; maybe I had a bit more passion because I had just accidently rediscovered the horrors of Old-Wizard.com. Apparently the lesson I'm supposed to learn from all this is that it's impossible to resolve a conflict and defend yourself simultaneously.

Apologies to anyone who thought I was stomping around searching for an e-fight or something, I can promise you that was never the case. Though I can't figure out exactly what I've done wrong, I'm gonna be the big man here and just openly say that I'm sorry for the confusion and frustration.

Uh-huh. Is that so?

Let's go back to the start of this conversation, with the RyaNtheSlayA and the King discussion on Sega's relevance during the 32/64-bit era and afterwards. The King begins with a discussion of what Gamerforlife's phrase "back in Sega's prime" meant, and then expostulates that Sega's prime was the Genesis generation. Let's look at the quote:

So, you mean during the Genesis years? Seriously, besides the Genesis, what has Sega really done?

I'm a fan of both, probably more so Nintendo, but I really don't get this whole love affair with Sega. I'm a huge Genesis fan, but everything after was a failure, whereas Nintendo hasn't gone anywhere and is currently winning the current console war.

This right here shows the King's overall opinion on the matter as coming from a business standpoint, as he looks at the bigger picture of the company's overall performance and where they have ultimately ended up. It's based around a question of when did Sega's prime actually occur, to which the King says is the Genesis. He does not actively claim the Saturn or Dreamcast are poor machines, quite the opposite in fact:

I agree and I own both a Saturn and a Dreamcast, along with a Master System as well as my Genesis. I really enjoy my Dreamcast, but by the time it came out Sega wasn't relevant as far as consoles due to all their goofy add ons for the Genesis and the complete failure that the Saturn was. We all know the back story here, so I really don't think I need to go into it anymore.

But he claims the Saturn is a failure and references Sega's relevance while the Dreamcast was out based on a business perspective. This was in response to what could be seen as this string of Nintendo bashing:

the Wii is a step backwards.

More like a step forwards. In the wrong direction.

LOL, well said. I'm a Sega guy. They have always been more edgy, experimental, creative, hardcore, modern and just plain cooler than Nintendo. At least, back in Sega's prime anyway. Not quite so much now and days.

I respect Nintendo, but they've always been too stubborn, too family friendly and too reliant on their age old first party properties. I can't believe they still make games about Mario. He's so eighties and outdated to me. Also, while people always talk about the awesomeness of Nintendo first party titles, I have always been more impressed by Sony's first party efforts(Ico comes to mind), but Sony has no place in this discussion

Notice a difference here. The King is analyzing an argument from a historical viewpoint, postulating about Sega based on sales figures and their current role in the market. This differs from the views put forth by Gamerforlife and other supporters(frankly on both sides of the discussion), which seem to be based on style, attitude, and design, as well as a mixture of some nostaliga. All of this is perfectly fine and neither opinion is wrong, they were just derived in different ways. Now look at RyaNtheSlayA's response to the King:

Failure how? Sure in sales numbers. But in inovation and a good time overall. Sega has done wonders on all their consoles. Taking risks and innovating was what made them special. Even the Master System was the console of choice in the PAL regions and each of their consoles have been popular at least in one region. Each of their systems has had moderate sales sucess at least (minus the add-ons, but even then they had acceptable sales).

Ryan immediately questions the King's premise and claims innovation and entertainment value as more important, and does make an excellent point about Sega's success in individual regions at the time, but he fails to look at the bigger picture that the King mentioned, which was that, regardless of success in any single region, Sega was losing enough money in other regions due to business choices that were steadily crippling the company. RyaNtheSlayA then makes a statement which I felt was frankly insulting to the King:

I guess I'm just curious what you mean by failure. Sure they didn't have great sales, but if you take that as a measure of sucess then you are probably a blind fanboy.

What Ryan doesn't realize is that his choice of examples for Sega's "success" during the time period is largely based on opinion of said consoles and games that Ryan puts forth, ie. fanboyism. He also edited the quote five minutes after posting, so I can only speculate on what else his message contained, possibly an important fact, or perhaps another insult.

Were the Sega Saturn and Sega Dreamcast truly innovative? Yes, in certain respects, the Saturn did wonders with 3D technology(though admittedly was bettered by both PS1 and N64) and the Dreamcast's compact design and controller designs were quite good, while the VMU was an outstanding jump on the memory card that Sony had popularized with the PS1(ZeroAx later mentions Sega's work with online capabilities, but that actually started during the Genesis era). Some of the games Ryan mentioned were innovative as well, though so were many games on other consoles in the same eras. Yes, Yu Suzuki's pioneering work in 3D technology for Sega was amazing, especially the Virtua Racing and Virtua Fighter series(and I would argue Virtua Fighter as being one of the pinnacle series of 3D fighters), and it does deserve a special place in Sega's history, but there's something to consider a moment. Virtua Fighter was the major factor driving Sega Saturn sales, but fighting games were coming down from their dominance of the early 90s, to be replaced by what I see as the dawn of the 3D RPG era(which has since been replaced by the console-based first person shooter).

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. It is at this point that Dylan, understanding the King's argument, and then begins defending the King. I'm not saying that Dylan feels he must be some heroic knight fighting for the King's honor, I'm saying he gets what the King means and attempts to help him express it.

He's just taking a more big picture view. Sales determine whether a console fails or not. You're looking at it from a more specific perspective, I'll bet you can name dozens of great games on these consoles. It's not a failure in quality, they just ultimately lost the contest.

Dylan also responds to the King's contemplations with respect, and the two have a nice, if short, discussion on some of Sega's releases after the Genesis. But let's look at the King's response to Ryan:

Jeez, you want to talk about being a blind fanboy?

By failure, yes I mean sales. If no buys it then it's failure. This is a business, not lets cater to a niche group. I don't care how many of your favorite games were on that system, if it was one of the reasons why the company dosen't produce consoles anymore, then yes it's a failure. Out of all those Saturn games you metioned, one appealed to me and I'm a gamer, so where does that leave the general public?

You want to talk about taking risks and being innovative? What is the Wii? Heck, Microsort and Sony are both trying to copy and come out with their own motion controls.

Honestly, I really don't want to go on and on, back and forth on what's better. Obviously each person has their own favorites, but I think it's pretty clear which company failed and which is still going. Thats not fanboy talk because I wish Sega was still making consoles, but clearly they weren't cut out for it.

Here the King spells out how he came to his opinion on Sega as a failure, based upon sales, and stresses the Wii as technologically innovative. He also brings up a good point on innovation, which is that for all the innovation of the games Ryan mentioned, that doesn't mean they are popular with everyone, harkening back to Gamerforlife's claims about style. Even our thoughts on who is the most interesting and innovative is subject to our opinions, and the King sees sales as a measure of public opinion.

That's where you come in, once again arguing in terms of style, specifically in the "games as art" vein, championing it over the use of sales figures, even though sales figures do reflect popular opinion. As for your analogy of Twilight versus Kafka, I believe there's far more to that discussion so that it does not form a viable analogy, and truthfully some people would respond that yes, Twilight is better. But you do give an excellent portrayal of your opinions and why you feel Sega's the superior company.

Here's MrPopo's response to you:

I don't think he was calling Sega a failure based on artistic merit, but simply as a business. Sega got out of the console business because it was losing them all kinds of money. That's the definition of failure.

The answer you were looking for was spelled out for you here: Sega failed as a business, not due to style, and that is what the King has been emphasizing. Your response is to misconstrue what the King said, possibly intentionally, which I saw as hostile.

"Seriously, besides the Genesis, what has Sega really done?". This implies that Sega never did anything of worth after the Sega Genesis? What, because the Dreamcast didn't SELL well? That means that Rez, Shenmue, Jet Grind Radio, Phantasy Star Online, and Samba De Amigo weren't worthwhile because they didn't SELL well? Nevermind that Rez cohesively implemented Kandinsky's theory of synthesaesia into a video game in order to stimulate gamers visually, aurally, and cognitively all at once; that Shenmue was a multi-million dollar project which culminated in one of the most gripping, immersive video gaming experiences ever crafted; that Jet Grind Radio ushered in a new graphical style which is still utilized in video games a decade later, even by the likes of Nintendo; that Phantasy Star Online was the very first mainstream console MMORPG, helping to pave the way for broad-scale online video games on home consoles; that Samba De Amigo utilized motion controls, an innovation not fully explored until a decade after Sega's death with Nintendo's very own Wii. To say one is inferior to the other for reasons so goddamn irrelevant as sales figures is deplorable! Sega was a failure because the mass consumer market ignored their innovations? In my eyes, true success is not measured by revenue, it's measured by progress. While Sega's progress cannot be efficiently measured by the size of their wallets at the end of the day, simply noting their countless innovations and relentless drive to explore their personal creativity in the face of certain economic failure is what makes them a success in my eyes. So they were poorly managed by the suits up top; so the the mass market failed to catch-on: excellent points when comparing the strengths of the company in a debate of economics, but wholly worthless in a debate of which was the best video game company. So you like Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Starfox, Kirby, and Pokemon better than Sonic, NiGHTS, Panzer Dragoon, Ecco, Jet Grind Radio, and Phantasy Star - that's perfectly fine! I just personally think that this guy should judge which company he feels is superior using the criteria of his own personal preferences rather than the status quo's collective preference.

Listen, I'm not trying to turn this into a flame-war, because that would be incredibly stupid given the nature of this forum. I'm just sick of hearing "Nintendo > Sega, because Sega was more poorly managed". The argument doesn't make any sense in the context of whom made better video games.

This is where you became hostile. Obviously the King is wrong to you because all these games were so innovative based on a technical viewpoint. The King never said that the Saturn and Dreamcast weren't worth owning, quite the opposite in fact. But he does believe that Sega's prime was the Genesis. You also intentionally scratch over this by lumping things together: your line "Sonic, NiGHTS, Panzer Dragoon, Ecco, Jet Grind Radio, and Phantasy Star" shows this, based on your choice of placing Sonic and Ecco, both from the Genesis era, and Phantasy Star(which started on the Master System) with titles from the later consoles that he deemed failures based on the purchases that effect popular opinion.

The way I see it, you seem to have gotten upset because of how he approached the topic and his reasoning that he feels Nintendo's a better company. Look here: "I'm just sick of hearing "Nintendo > Sega, because Sega was more poorly managed". The argument doesn't make any sense in the context of whom made better video games." Actually it does. Sega created some interesting franchises, but due to poor management these franchises have had ups and downs. Are you certain Sega's poor management hasn't led to the horde of poorer and poorer quality Sonic titles? What about the decision to not release Shenmue 3, or to only release specific Yakuza titles in the West? Ultimately management tells the workers what to produce and what should be released in what regions and when. So a poorly managed company could have killed even further innovative features of the titles and made for poorer-quality video games. The thing you seem to have glossed over is that at the end of the day, Sega was a business. Management allowed innovative gameplay to come along because they felt it would sell better, not because of the artistic merit. They created a sense of "attitude" for their products because they thought they could bring in an older market with it. So to consider their own business decisions when weighing the quality of the company is perfectly legitimate, something you refused to recognize.

And here, Dylan points the conversation out to you:

Dude, it's been established that we're looking at this from a business perspective. That's what he means.

High sales > success
Low sales > failure

The quality of the games on other consoles is not the issue, it's what worked for the general public.

And you seem to respond with a bad attitude.

What the hell is the point of pointing out something that everyone already knows, particularly if it's wholly irrelevant to the discussion? Everyone knows Nintendo fared better from a business standpoint, but what does that have to do with the OP's question of which company he personally prefers? If the argument were, "Which company had better sales?" it wouldn't be an argument at all, it would be an unanimous agreement! The OP asked which company floats your boat, not which floats more people's boat. Furthermore, his question of what Sega had "really" done after the Genesis clearly exposes the fact that he's implemented the "business" non-issue of the matter into his criteria for what makes a company "good" to the point that apparently he believes that any action enacted by a company is worthless if it does not generate sales.

Again, you gloss over his later statements entirely in an attempt to break his argument, and ultimately for what? Because you want him to say a failed company that you happen to like is better? As for hostility, does "What the hell is the point of pointing out something that everyone already knows, particularly if it's wholly irrelevant to the discussion?" not come off as intentionally hostile to you? And perhaps it is relevant to the discussion, but you refuse to acknowledge this because somehow he's insulting your precious company.

That is when I put up the facepalm image of John Stewart.

And you seem to calm down for a moment.

Yeah, you're right actually. I need to focus my energy on more productive things. I'm gonna go back to finishing the short story I'd been writing before I got all caught up in this mess.

Later, when I said that the point of this image was to briefly jolt everyone and give us a moment to laugh, it appeared to have done just that. KholdStare and Mod_Man_Extreme both laughed at it. You decided to quit arguing and go do something else. A bit of a cooldown from what must have been a tense discussion.

Dylan's response shows he noticed your tension and hostility as well:

Calm down. Also, I believe you were the one who started this argument.

It's also obvious however that the tension is getting to him, but since you've cooled down, he adds a moment of regret. While it's not an apology for an attitude, it does reveal that he doesn't necessarily wish to engage in an argument, which is why I posted the message about a double facepalm. He had stated that if you were cooling down, he was wrong for being so passionate in his defense. His initial post didn't have this caveate, which would have meant he was continuing an argument that was pissing off forum members. Because frankly, if you need to take a breather and cool off, it's probably because you're getting mad and potentially going to escalate the conflict. But while Dylan posts a response, he also prepares himself to back down, and does so here:

All right, I swear off this thread. Sorry everybody.

He does this after your return, where you once again refuse to see what he's driving at, after having claimed that you were going to focus on other things, which you clearly did not do. You rekindle what I see as an argument and are immediately combative to what Dylan was saying, having disregarded his and the King's reasonings all along. That is why I posted the second picture, because you immediately go back on your words and launch into an attack, and the result is having someone willing to debate with you swear off the thread and apologize to everyone for letting the argument happen.

And for the record, at least KholdStare saw my response coming. J T responds to Dylan's answer to you, but not having been through the debate, I don't think he was considering the root of the problem. Your response for causing a person to stop looking at the thread is to then ask why I did what I did while attempting to make yourself look wholly innocent of the situation. I say the argument is over and it's time for us all to go about our businesses, and you decide it's time to turn on me while swearing your own innocence and benevolence, though it was you who completely disregarded their arguments because you were "just sick of hearing" their argument. And you fail to see why I'm stepping in. As a moderator, it is my job to "worry myself with it." I am being "obnoxious" and making you "feel stupid" because I feel this conversation has already reached a point where it is detrimental to the forum, though one side apparently refuses to acknowledge that despite having driven away the competition through its attitude. But thank you for being kind enough to "humor" me, since obviously you're so high and mighty you wish to insult a moderator when they get involved in what couldn't be a hostile conversation, at least not through your eyes. When I respond and give you an explanation, albeit admittedly somewhat hostile, you choose to respond with backhanded insults and self pity. "Oh poor me, who hasn't done anything wrong, nevermind having helped drive people from the conversation, I've obviously done nothing wrong and now the big, bad moderator is picking on me."

Listen, I didn't want this to become a huge, stupid internet fight, I just wanted to make a point that personal preference and general concensus are not one and the same;

But general consensus may also have an impact on personal preference and individual opinion, something you've been refusing to recognize throughout the entire conversation, and your conversation certainly seems to have been leading to a "huge, stupid internet fight," even if you are incapable of recognizing that, or simply unwilling.

The important thing here however is that the conversation is now over and the different parties can go their separate ways, and hopefully we will have no further discussion on this argument.